Did Bessler Invent Two solutions?

Although I’m reasonably satisfied with my Bessler-Collins theory, the truth is the design looks more complex than we’ve been led to believe it was.  Karl is reported to have expressed surprise that the solution had not been discovered before. On another occasion, when asked if it was complicated, he replied that he thought a carpenter’s boy could make one if he was allowed to study it.

On the other hand we extracted certain information from the text in two of his books, that as well as weights and levers there was also a number of pulleys and by inference some lengths of cord. These items were all operating according to their design, so I guess the action was relatively narrow with minimal overlap.  

Given the size of his first wheel exhibition at Gera, 6th June, 1712, which measured nearly six and  half feet in diameter but with a thickness of just 4 inches, it seems hard to imagine all of the internal mechanisms fitting comfortably within such a narrow space.  

I built my wheels on a flat disc of wood material but given the shortage of flat sheets of wood, other than very expensive wood veneer, I’m sure Bessler built on a skeletal structure made of wood, which would have been more stable than mine.  Karl’s use of the words “carpenter’s boy”, suggests that perhaps the majority of the wheel was comprised of wood which was also used extensively in organ-building, and was his brother, Gottfried’s area of expertise.

If the mechanism was attached to two structures in the shape of a pentagram, I think the interior would be tight but sufficient for a similar mechanism to mine.

Bessler used oil cloth to cover the sides of the two largest wheel. Apparently oil cloth was typically made of heavy linen or cotton canvas, treated with boiled linseed oil to create a durable, waterproof material. It was often coated with iron oxide pigments (such as red Spanish brown or yellow) for colour. It was similar to a ship’s sale of the day but thinner and still difficult to penetrate and surprisingly heavy.

Finally Bessler said that between each move he “smashed the wheel”.  He blamed this action on the antics of his so-called enemies, Gartner, Wagner and Borlach.  I don’t believe he destroyed his wheel, so much as took it to pieces.  He then gathered all the parts ready to use on another larger wheel at his new address.  Material such as he needed for his wheels was hard to come by and expensive; it doesn’t make sense to just chuck everything away.

The emotive quality of the words disguises the fact that the safest way to transport the wheel without risking the danger of someone attempting to steal it, and thus the secret, was to disassemble it. It was merely a security precaution. Even when he died, the one remaining model of his machine was found in pieces, and it made sense to take such action to protect his invention being stolen.

So did Bessler invent a  simpler gravity wheel, but one with less power potential than the+later ones? Just in case he did, I’m checking back to see if there is the vaguest hint  that he might have done, I’ll let you know if I find anything.

JC

The Bessler-Collins Theory of Gravity-Enabled Continuous Rotation.

 

I mentioned previously that we should concentrate on the WA (work-around) proposal and deal with the result of that before we try to design a method of incorporating it in a working wheel. The reason being, that even though I’m confident that the concept is right, I’m not a hundred per cent confident on how to incorporate it in a working wheel.

Returning to my previous post, the point I’ve tried to explain, so far unsuccessfully is this.   In the image below, repeated from my previous blog, the two blue levers show the start and end positions as if they were scissor mechanisms with a weight on the end if each.  

Sorry I omitted the weights, but compare the blue levers with the red ones and it is obvious thar the blue ones with a weight  on the end, finish in a more favourable position, with

 each weight further back from their starting position causing the wheel to turn forward a lot more than with the red ones.

In the image below, also copied from my previous post, the pink scissor mechanisms expand to put the weight near the outer edge of the wheel and the following radius with its own scissor mechanism ready to fall.  The falling mechanism will naturally expand under the influence of gravity.  The cost is continuous and  the same as if it fell straight down.  But in this case the weight moves sideways and downwards.  So at no cost in gravitational energy, the design has increased the amount of torque available for lifting the fallen weight.

I wrote “no cost”, but there is a small and acceptable cost; the falling weight falls more slowly, as Fischer von Erlach stated that 'the sound of about eight weights may be heard landing gently on the side toward which the wheel turned'. So the scissor mechanism does slow the fall down a little, but achieves the desired end result, more torque.

So when people ask, “where does the extra energy to lift the fallen weight come from?” The answer is there, thanks to the scissor mechanism falling further back against the wheel’s forward rotation and of course the fallen weight’s  roll back from its landing position, towards its next fall.

Remember each mechanism is linked to another one, so as one weight falls, another weight is lifted, moving the centre of gravity backwards, over and over again.

This repeated falling and lifting results in an incredibly smooth rotation, as noted several times in the witnesses recordings of the tests. Because a weight falls, generating rotation, at the same time lifting another weight which removes any braking or balancing effect, the wheel is continuously out of balance and hunting for equilibrium.  

The initiator of rotation seems to be the falling of the first weight, that is arguably not necessarily true.  If the weight has not fallen yet, then the previous one must have fallen, therefore the wheel is still out off balance, hence the need to apply a brake to stop its continuous turning.

In my next post I’m going to show you how I found the design is all the mechanisms within Bessler’s images.

JC

Re-Inventing Bessler’s wheel Part Two

 I’m going to try to provide a better explanation for my design.  This will be in two parts because there are two aspects to this explanation.

To answer questions from my previous blog, the scissors mechanisms are mild steel, but the curved  guide arms are/were aluminium.  The weights are mild steel and there are two per lever, each pair weighs 80 gram grams about 2.8 ounces.  Not much but it seems to be enough on 36 inch diameter wheel.

To begin with I’ll concentrate on the so-call “work-around”, (WA) without which my wheel design won’t work.

Some of the text which follows contains assumptions about Bessler’s thinking.  The ideas described are how I imagine Bessler’s thoughts proceeded.

The main focus of action occurs around the six o’clock radius, when a mechanism approaches it from the right.  I use the word “approach”, because as we know, the wheel is permanently out of balance.  The weighted lever in the approaching mechanism is almost vertical but leans back to the right, or to the rear, by 18 degrees.  This encourages it to fall back a full 90 degrees immediately it’s pivot reaches the six o’clock radius.

At this point I believe it’s worth reminding everyone that every angle inside a pentagram is a multiple of 18 degrees, so the angles include - 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108.  But there is one 30 degree added which doesn’t normally appear in the pentagon.

So the weighted lever falls to 108 degrees from the vertical radius, 18 + 90 degrees = 108. This provided a very small mechanical advantage (MA).  It wasn’t enough to do more than rotate the wheel a few degrees.  

It occurred to Bessler that making the weighted lever fall back to a point closer to the following radius and its weighted lever, would generate a considerably larger MA.  If he could design a system that achieved the extra MA, then the wheel would rotate further than the few degrees from before.  Incorporating this feature to generate the extra forward rotation would cause the previously fallen weight to counter-rotate, making its weighted lever ride further backwards towards its pre-fall position.  From this position the weighted lever would require less lifting effort to return it to its original pre-fall position.

Bessler noted that in the action of a  falling lever there were very few comments about the potential energy generated by a falling weight.  He thought that the loud noise made as it landed disguised the possibility that he might be able to tap the small extra source of energy before it landed, which it usually spent creating noise and miniscule heat.

He designed a scissor mechanism which would control the descent of the weighted lever, sending it in an elongated arch straight towards the following radius which had its own weighted lever ready to fall.  

The scissor mechanism could expand or contract and was operated by a weighted lever.  Bessler warned us to put the horse before the cart, so the weight used it’s falling mass to begin operating the scissor mechanism, reacting to its lever’s position and driving the mechanism.

The path of each mechanism was controlled by one long lever which was fixed to a pivot close to the wheel’s centre of rotation. The other end was connected to the mechanism but was lengthened to pass through it almost to the edge of the wheel.

Bessler used the scissor mechanism because he had observed that it was the most suitable method given it worked best when moving horizontally.  A slight slope would send it extending, whereas a slope in the opposite direction would send it contracting.  

The long control lever extended through the scissor mechanism to provide an anchor at its outer end to tie the end of a cord.  The outer end of the long lever was thrust backwards quite strongly by the fall of its weighted lever, providing a good pull on the attached cord. The cord passed over two pulleys.  One pulley was positioned close to the edge of the wheel and  directed the cord up and around a second pulley close the axle.  This redirected it down to the weight on the weighted lever in the previous mechanism.  

NB.  This last sentence is not necessarily correct.  The images I’ve interpreted suggest it might not connect with the previous fallen mechanism because it would be counter-rotating anyway.  Alternate suggestion requires the lifting of a weight around two or three o’clock, i.e, just past TDC.

Continuing…

As the first mechanism at six o’clock fell, it’s cord pulled the weighted lever in the previous mechanism back up just 30 degrees, into a neutral position aligned with the inner circle upon which all the lever pivots are stationed.  This small lift is designed to be work as quickly as possible.

This fast lift is necessary because once the the weighted lever moves past its own radius, it begins to travel uphill, causing a braking action on the turning of the wheel.  It can be likened to the action of a pendulum which falls until it reached bottom dead centre, and then begins to climb, unless the pendulum is shortened somewhat, when it speeds up.

The potential energy formed during the weights fall is used by the scissor mechanisms to drive them sideway towards the rear and the oncoming mechanism.

In the above image the pairs of red lines show the start and stop positions of a single weighted lever, according to Bessler’s original design.  The blue lines on either side of the sic o’clock radius, show the theoretical start and stop positions of each weighted lever when fitted with the scissor mechanism attaching it to the pivot point.

Comparing the two stop positions it’s clear that the blue lever has the better potential for lifting the fallen weight.

In the picture below I’ve removed the metal strips I added to reduce the lateral sway evident in my own model as they are not necessary in a well-built model! 

Hope this helps. More details in next post.

JC

Re-inventing The Wheel - Bessler’s Wheel!

The Bessler-Collins Solution to the Gravity-Wheel.

The concept that Johann Bessler discovered over 300 years ago and which took me most of my life to dream of, is simple.  We only have one action available to us to try to understand the concept and then try and make it into a reality. A weighted lever falls through a 90 degree arc.  It has two features to the fall that can be used to our advantage.  One of them is deciding where to try and make it land at a desirable point, to generate some torque.  The second one is to find a way to make use of the potential energy generated during the fall.

The answer has to be found here if we accept that Bessler discovered it.  There isn’t any other source of energy available.

NB In what follows I will attribute certain pieces of information to Bessler, but lack of space means I won’t be filling the page with explanations of where I found them or how I know what he meant.  I have spent a lifetime studying Bessler’s clues and it will take a large book to reveal each and every clue and how I deciphered each.  I’ve published some of the clues and their meaning, but they were easier ones to find and explain. But as well, there are still many clues identified but still not all solved.

As far as we know; this particular configuration has never been found before, or demonstrated  - until Bessler  found it.

First Bessler decided where he wanted the weight to land.  Ideally he wanted to generate as much torque as possible.  Initially he designed the weighted levers to fall in a 90 degree arc, but this produced hardly any torque and he knew that once the wheel rotated a little, the torque would be neutralised. The weight had hardly moved more than a few degrees backwards from under the axle.

Bessler used the potential energy generated by the weighted lever, during its fall, to shift the weighted lever’s landing point towards the following mechanism.  He used a scissor mechanism to achieve this.  These operate sideways best and can operate in reverse when conditions allow.  With five mechanisms employed, the gap between the mechanisms amounted to 72 degrees and moving into that gap would greatly increase the torque with additional benefits.  In reality the full 72 degrees was not available but at least half of it was and that amounted to significant increase on the original amount gained by the right angled fall.

The mechanism preceding this falling one, would counter-rotate about 30 degrees as the wheel rotated forwards reducing the amount of lift needed to return it to its prelaunch position.

Bessler mentions that at one point the weight shot upwards.  This is a very important point and is key to success. I explained it in my www.besslerswheel.com website at Swing Mechanics, click on the principle button (posted in 2010!).  Remember Bessler’s words “The weights gain force from their own swinging”.

Making the fallen weight rise up quickly is actioned by attaching a length of cord to the weight on the fallen mechanism and attaching the other end to the red dot on the falling mechanism.

Solving the Problem

After more than ten years research, Bessler finally found a potential solution which could be stated quite simply.  It was this concept which I dreamed of a couple of years ago.  Some of the potential energy gained during the fall of a weight, (before the weight lands) needs to be used to reduce the amount of lift required to return the weight to its pre-fall position. Bessler studied all possibilities and he found the answer - the special configuration of weights needed.

He divided the action of the falling weight into two parts.  The first part involved choosing where the falling weight landed, i.e., which part of the edge or rim of the wheel was best. The second part of the action used some of the potential energy accumulating during the weight’s fall, to move the falling weight sideways to land it at his chosen landing spot.

He used a unique scissor mechanism to guide the falling weight into a gentle arc towards the outer end of the following radius and its pivot.  If the weight had fallen through a standard right angle arc of 90 degrees, without the extending action of the scissor mechanism, it would give little torque and none available once the wheel was rotating.

Bessler’s wheel needed five mechanisms each consisting of  a lever plus one weight.  All the five weights were of equal size and mass. Having five mechanisms meant each one was 72 degrees from the next one.

So, depending on where the scissor mechanism landed its weight, could, for instance, make the wheel rotate up to 30 degrees forward. This is because when the weight lands about 70 degrees further back from the pivot point at the end of the six o’clock radius, it causes the wheel to rotate forwards about half that distance, or around 30 degrees. 

At the same time the previously fallen weighted lever mechanism begins to move backwards relative to the forward rotation of the wheel.  It moves backward about 30 degrees, which is more than it would have done if the weight had moved through its normal 90 degree fall, without the extension.  This reduces the amount of lift in the fallen (wl) needed to maintain rotation.

Because gravity is only responsible for the vertical distance the scissor mechanisms which forced the weight to move sideways as it fell, it did not use more energy than if it had fallen straight downwards, but it borrowed a little from the potential energy being generated by the falling weight. That potential energy produced during the fall, is largely wasted in making noise when it lands, but moving the weight sideways caused it to land much further back along the wheel’s rim, thus providing a larger mechanical advantage (MA), or torque; more than if it had fallen through the normal unextended 90 degree arc.

When the extended scissor mechanism lands on the edge of the wheel, it lands gently because it has been diverted from its vertical path by the potential energy accumulating in the vertical fall.  NB, Fischer von Erlach commented on this by saying that the weight could be heard landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned.

Bessler showed us that although the weight fell through 90 degrees, a previously fallen weight only needed to be lifted 30 degrees to reduce any braking effect it would have suffered without the lift.  This also provided an additional increase in torque leading to the rapid acceleration of the wheel, as noted by many reliable witnesses. These two actions happened simultaneously.

The five mechanisms worked in pairs and were arranged quite close to each other so the witnesses were able to remark positively on the extremely smooth rotation of the wheel. 

The fact that every time a single weight fell, a previously fallen weight was launched upwards,  in effect nudged the centre of gravity backwards continuously.  The wheel itself was recorded as needing its brake set to stop it rotating, and it would immediately beginning rotating as soon as the brake was released.  This tells us that the wheel was permanently out-of-balance.

Using a metronome set to the Merseburg wheel spin speed of 50 rpm, with five weights falling at every turn of the wheel, means the sound of weights landing 250 times per minute, or about four times every second! 

The Kassel wheel had nine mechanism so each one was separated from its neighbour by just 40 degrees.  Its spin speed unloaded was 26 RPM. Each weight landed 234 times per minute. Just under 4 times per second!  No wonder Fischer Von Erlach could only describe the “sound of about 8 weights landing gently on the side of the wheel”. 

The Solution

Using the scissor mechanisms to push the falling weighted levers sideways comes naturally to this device, it’s the way it moves most easily. Bessler commented in his Apologia Poetica,

 “A crab crawls from side to side. It is sound, for it is designed thus.” 

Not only does it move easily opening in one direction but is easily reversed and closing when the wheel is reversed.

All my versions of Bessler’s wheel are designed to turn clock-wise.

‘

The information box is smaller than I planned so here a bigger version.

The first red line shows the weighted levers.

The pink lines show the scissor mechanisms.

The green lines show the scissor guide arms.

The blue lines show the short extension to the green scissor guide arms. Each has a cord attached which provides a link to the weighted levers.  When a weighted lever falls, the end of the arm follows edge of the wheel, pulling the cord, thus lifting a previous fallen weighted lever.

The red dot on the end of the green scissor guide arm shows where the cord is attached.

The grey and black lines show the aluminium retaining bar, controlling the lateral sway I see when the scissor mechanisms fall.

Unfortunately my own model has not been finished yet.  I had hoped to finish it in time for my birthday but other calls on my time prevented this happening. I need to add the connecting cords and I’ll post a new picture when I’ve finished. At least this post shows where I’ve go to and hopefully explains my latest concept.

There are a few facts about Bessler’s wheel which I have been able establish with absolute certainty. I will explain more later, but for now;

1.  There are at least 5 mechanisms required.  

2.  An odd number of mechanisms are required, 5, 7 or 9.

3.  5 mechanisms produce the fastest RPM, more mechanisms produce slower RPM. This is because more mechanisms take up more room, leaving less space for their actions.

4. It is necessary for the starting point of the weight’s fall to be higher than its landing point.  This may seem obvious but it cannot be achieved with some current designs being made suggested, for instance 4 mechanisms cannot accomplish it.

JC